NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HONGLAN HAN, Petitioner,
v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. No. 10-70295 Agency No. A200-104-208
MEMORANDUM *

HONGLAN HAN, AKA Hong Lan Han, Petitioner,
v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. No. 12-73311 Agency No. A200-104-208

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals 

# FILED
FEB 10 2014 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.Submitted February 5, 2014 ** Pasadena, California Before: KLEINFELD, SILVERMAN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Honglan Han challenges the denial of her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, a nd relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Boar d”). She also challenges the Board’s denial of her motion to reopen. Even assuming credibility, the record does not compel us to grant the petitions.
Substantial evidence supports the Board’s conclusion that Han did not suffer past persecution on account of her relig ious practice. Han was detained after police broke up a service at her church in 1998. As congregants ran out, someone pushed her from behind causing her to hit her head. There was no evidence that the police pushed her or intentionally cau sed her injury. Upon arrival at the detention center Han was released because of her head injury and her age (17 at the time). These circumstances do not co mpel a finding of persecution. See Prasad v. INS , 47 F.3d 336, 339 (9th Cir. 1995) (evide nce that petitioner was hit and kicked

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 2during brief detention at police station did not compel finding of persecution). Cf. Khourassany v. INS , 208 F.3d 1096, 1100–01 (9th Cir. 2000) (detention and questioning for short periods without government-inflicted injury or threat of injury did not compel finding of persecution). Nor does the purported arrest of Han’s father. Han testified that her mothertold her that Han’s father was arrested for being “a religious man.” But the detention card Han submitted for the record does not state the reason for her father’s arrest. Han’s hearsay testimony does not compel a finding of persecution when wei ghed against the other evidence in the record. See Gu v. Gonzales , 454 F.3d 1014, 1021 (9th Cir. 2006) (petitioner’shearsay evidence may be given less weight by trier of fact as weighed against nonhearsay evidence); Prasad , 47 F.3d at 340 (“[A]ttacks on family members do not necessarily establish a well-founded fearof persecution absent a pattern of persecution tied to the petitioners.”).
Nor does the record compel a finding of a well-founded fear of future persecution. Han lived in China withoutany trouble from the police for ten years after the 1998 incident. See Castillo v. INS , 951 F.2d 1117, 1122 (9th Cir. 1991) (presence in Nicaragua for five years after interrogation without further harm undermined asylum claim). 3Because Han has failed to establish e ligibility for asylum she necessarily fails to establish eligibility fo r withholding of removal. See Al-Harbi v. INS , 242 F.3d 882, 888-89 (9th Cir. 2001). Substantial evidence also supports the denial of CAT relief because Han has not shown th at she will “more likely than not” be tortured upon return to China. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2).
The Board did not abuse its discretion in determining that Han’s motion to reopen was untimely when filed two years after the deadline. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i). Nor did it abuse its discretion when it found that she did not qualify for an exception based on cha nged country conditions or her 2011 marriage. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); In re Velarde-Pacheco , 23 I & N Dec. 253, 256 (BIA 2002) (granting motion to reopen based on adjustment of status when timely filed).
Finally, Han’s arguments that the pr oceedings violated her due process rights and that the IJ disregarded the proper burden of proof were not presented to the IJ or the Board. Those claims have not been exhausted, so we lack jurisdiction to review them. Barron v. Ashcroft , 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004).

4PETITIONS DENIED.

5